{"id":7965,"date":"2022-05-18T12:59:57","date_gmt":"2022-05-18T12:59:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shrm.org\/resourcesandtools\/legal-and-compliance\/employment-law\/pages\/emotional-distress-damages-are-not-available-section-504-aca.aspx"},"modified":"2022-05-18T12:59:57","modified_gmt":"2022-05-18T12:59:57","slug":"high-court-emotional-distress-damages-arent-available-under-section-504-or-the-aca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/squarehrwired.com\/index.php\/2022\/05\/18\/high-court-emotional-distress-damages-arent-available-under-section-504-or-the-aca\/","title":{"rendered":"High Court: Emotional Distress Damages Aren\u2019t Available Under Section 504 or the ACA"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

?The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 28 that emotional distress damages aren’t available in discrimination claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We’ve gathered articles on the decision from SHRM Online<\/em> and other media outlets.<\/p>\n

Rehabilitation Act Lawsuit<\/p>\n

The plaintiff in the case is deaf and legally blind and mostly communicates using American Sign Language. She sought services from a physical therapy provider that receives federal funding. The provider declined her request for an interpreter, and she sued under the Rehabilitation Act, alleging disability discrimination and seeking damages that include emotional distress. The lower courts ruled that emotional distress damages are not available, and the plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.<\/p>\n

(SHRM Online<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n

Comparison Drawn Between Plaintiffs’ Claims and Lawsuits for Breach of Contract<\/p>\n

The plaintiff also sued under the ACA. The court ruled that she could not recover emotional distress damages. In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court stated that emotional distress damages are not traditionally available in lawsuits for breach of contract and so are not recoverable under the spending clause anti-discrimination statutes in the plaintiff’s lawsuit.<\/p>\n

(SCOTUSblog<\/a>)<\/p>\n

No Notice of Emotional Damages Liability<\/p>\n

The court concluded that because the statutes are silent as to the availability of remedies, and because emotional distress damages are not traditionally available in suits for breach of contract, a recipient of federal funding would not be on notice that it would face liability for emotional distress. <\/p>\n

(JD Supra<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Dissenting Opinion<\/p>\n

Dissenting, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the chief justice had asked the right question but given the wrong answer. Some sorts of contracts, he wrote, can give rise to lawsuits for emotional harm. “Does breach of a promise not to discriminate fall into this category?” he wrote. “I should think so.”<\/p>\n

(The New York Times<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n

Plaintiff’s Attorney Calls on Congressional Action<\/p>\n

“Emotional harm is the most pervasive and often the only form of damages victims of intentional discrimination experience,” said the plaintiff’s attorney, Andrew Rozynski with Eisenberg & Baum in New York City. “We hope this case is a call to action for Congress to codify emotional distress damages in these statutes as a remedy for victims of race, sex and disability discrimination.” <\/p>\n

(Courthouse News Service<\/a>)<\/p>\n